Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?

Did OHM indicate the reason for 1000 rather than 2000 if the site indicates 2000 for that room volume and the room also opens up to adjacent areas? I would want to know if it were me.

The difference between 1000 and 2000 should be mainly bass levels in a given size room. Larger models might also be a tad more efficient if it matters in your case but I would ask OHM about that to be sure.

Floor type and interactions are another significant factor to consider. If your floors have a lot of give, as most floors in modern homes are, that affects the bass in that mid bass gets an artificial bump that can also obscure mid-range and detail to some extent. Isolation pads like Auralex subdude platforms solve that problem.

I use my OHM 100s which also have 8" drivers in a comparable sized open room area with excellent results however I use the sub dude platforms on upper levels. Not needed in finished listening room at foundation level.

Thank you all for the responses!
@mapman : I will follow up with Ohm to see what aspects of my room warranted their recommendation. Also, do I understand correctly that you use SubDude platforms under the 100s? My floors are now carpeted but that is going to change soon to hardwood, and the sonic aspects are not the primary considerations there ;-} I guess I may need some padding under the speakers when it happens.

@bondmanp : I like the idea that going with the 1000s now leaves me an option of adding one or two subs in the future to cover the low end extension (instead of sending the speaker back for a size-up). Ideally, though, I would love to not have to add more boxes to this room. And if Ohms handle the lows in mid-30-s nicely, it may be enough for me for now.  
 
Another thought I got from reading multiple reviews and discussions. It's mentioned that the Ohm speakers sound best when they are fed lots of power. Will that "sweet spot" of power intake will be lower for the smaller model and therefore easier achievable at reasonable (not too loud) music volume? If that's the case it may mean +1 for 1000.
Both 1000s and 2000s have their sensitivity listed at 88db, so the same power level from the amp should result in the same SPL at the couch. Or am I having this wrong?

Yes I use subdudes under my 100s when used in rooms on upper levels of the house.   Its the floor construction (suspended plywood) that matters not the cover type.   If you jump up and down and get any vibrations transmitted to items in the room then the subdudes should make a difference.   

I think I read somewhere  that the smaller models are less efficient than larger but if ratings are similar most likely not much difference with these two models specifically.   

@blin116 - I defer to mapman on the efficiency issue.  The way I see it is this:  The Ohm Walsh speakers represent such a good value, that if you find you must upgrade elsewhere, such as your amp, it is well worth it, as these speakers will let you hear what you spent the money on.  If your integrated has pre-outs, you can try borrowing a higher powered amp to see if you like the results.  But you may not feel this is necessary.

My thoughts are that John Strohbeen does not want to present Ohm speakers as tweaky or demanding of a lot power or expensive electronics.  And, to a degree, he is correct.  As my initial review noted, the 2000s sounded quite good on an older Onkyo surround receiver rated at 80 watts per channel without my subwoofers.  And yes, you can plunk them down in your room, play a little bit with toe-in, and off you go with good sound.  But, and it is a big but, none of this means the Ohm Walsh series won't respond well to better electronics, tweaks, room treatments, etc.  They will, and in spades.  The good news is they are not tweaky in the sense that they won't sound good at all unless you get fancy footers, expensive gear, high-priced cables, or extensive room treatments.  So one can do as much or as little as they like, and then just enjoy.  

Good summary Bondman. OHMs goal is to make good sound easy and affordable, not hard and complex. I ran them for many years that way not worrying about what could be done to make things better. In 2008 or so I decided to focus on achieving the best sound I could for me and after joining this forum,  dabbling with some other options for a number of years and listening to all the various options, including QUAD ES, Magnepan, and other more conventional designs including B&W, Triangle and Dynaudio, I decided to give the OHM upgrades a chance. Everything else in my system changed after I got the upgraded OHMs in order to perfect the sound. Now it has been that way for several years now and I have enjoyed countless hours of totally contented listening regularly since. Its an endeavor well worth it if one cares, but with the OHMs and the ready availability of high quality electronics to run them these days, its not that hard for many to get the best sound they have ever had relatively easily.